Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?

I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that) the facts told by the guardian ad litem. Do you have any such
knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court order?


If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in
the search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one
making the truth shine through.



Phil Innes